Results 1 to 20 of 161

Thread: Warfare: Food Supply/Access

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,099

    Default

    The linked article is a bit alarmist in its tone, although the basic data it's built on is pretty much on target. However, for a more cogent and reasoned look at the issue I recommend a read of this brief from the 6 Dec 07 issue of The Economist:

    Food Prices: Cheap No More
    ....According to the World Bank, 3 billion people live in rural areas in developing countries, of whom 2.5 billion are involved in farming. That 3 billion includes three-quarters of the world's poorest people. So in principle the poor overall should gain from higher farm incomes. In practice many will not. There are large numbers of people who lose more from higher food bills than they gain from higher farm incomes. Exactly how many varies widely from place to place.

    Among the losers from higher food prices are big importers. Japan, Mexico and Saudi Arabia will have to spend more to buy their food. Perhaps they can afford it. More worryingly, some of the poorest places in Asia (Bangladesh and Nepal) and Africa (Benin and Niger) also face higher food bills. Developing countries as a whole will spend over $50 billion importing cereals this year, 10% more than last.

    Rising prices will also hurt the most vulnerable of all. The World Food Programme, the main provider of emergency food aid, says the cost of its operations has increased by more than half in the past five years and will rise by another third in the next two. Food-aid flows have fallen to their lowest level since 1973.

    In every country, the least well-off consumers are hardest hit when food prices rise. This is true in rich and poor countries alike but the scale in the latter is altogether different. As Gary Becker, a Nobel economics laureate at the University of Chicago, points out, if food prices rise by one-third, they will reduce living standards in rich countries by about 3%, but in very poor ones by over 20%.

    Not all consumers in poor countries are equally vulnerable. The food of the poor in the Andes, for example, is potatoes; in Ethiopia, teff: neither is traded much across borders, so producers and consumers are less affected by rising world prices. As the World Bank's annual World Development Report shows, the number of urban consumers varies from over half the total number of poor in Bolivia, to about a quarter in Zambia and Ethiopia, to less than a tenth in Vietnam and Cambodia.

    But overall, enormous numbers of the poor—both urban and landless labourers—are net buyers of food, not net sellers. They have already been hard hit: witness the riots that took place in Mexico over tortilla prices earlier this year. According to IFPRI, the expansion of ethanol and other biofuels could reduce calorie intake by another 4-8% in Africa and 2-5% in Asia by 2020. For some countries, such as Afghanistan and Nigeria, which are only just above subsistence levels, such a fall in living standards could be catastrophic.....

  2. #2
    Council Member LawVol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Kabul
    Posts
    339

    Default

    I'm not so sure this argument is as viable as it appears at first glance. The author points mostly to the rise in corn prices since it is linked to many other food staples. While he correctly points out that the cost increase is due to the rise in demand of corn for ethenol products, he appears to ignore the basic market process. The rise in price is due to the rise in demand: as demand increases prices goes up and as demand decreases, prices go down. Right now, we've had a spike in demand for corn that does not correspond with production. I would think that if the demand continues, corn growers will increase their production thereby decreasing the overall price.

    As for using food as a weapon, I see international law concerns. Although food is certainly used by military forces, and international law does account for dual use when it comes to targeting (e.g. a bridge could be a lawful target since it allows an enemy to deploy forces despite the fact it is also used by civilians to take food to market), I doubt it would go this far. I don't really see a difference between carpet bombing a city and freezing food shipments to that city. The end result is the same: the targeting of the population as a whole by lethal means. But maybe I'm wrong. I'd be willing to consider arguments to the contrary.
    -john bellflower

    Rule of Law in Afghanistan

    "You must, therefore know that there are two means of fighting: one according to the laws, the other with force; the first way is proper to man, the second to beasts; but because the first, in many cases, is not sufficient, it becomes necessary to have recourse to the second." -- Niccolo Machiavelli (from The Prince)

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ocean Township, NJ
    Posts
    95

    Default

    You aren't, LawVol. That would be -classic- collective punishment.

    Blowing up the enemy's shipping, thereby also happening to reduce his ability to bring food in, is one thing.

    Specifically denying food to civilians? That's a war crime, IMHO.

    That said: We're hearing a lot about higher crop prices. However, for reference...What do normal crop prices for the quoted crops look like?

  4. #4
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    204

    Default Looking to be unlikely....

    Originally posted by LawVol:
    ...The rise in price is due to the rise in demand: as demand increases prices goes up and as demand decreases, prices go down. Right now, we've had a spike in demand for corn that does not correspond with production. I would think that if the demand continues, corn growers will increase their production thereby decreasing the overall price....
    ...that farmers are going to be able to vastly increase even more corn production. It's already happened (for the 2007 planting season; see below), and like the article points out, we've got corn running at over $4.50 a Bu. And nobody grows more corn than the US.

    Just some numbers:
    1) For 2006, the US grew 10.535 billion bushels of corn. The 2006 crop ended up 210 million bushels smaller than the November 2006 forecast and 579 million smaller than the September 2006 forecast.
    2) In September, 2007, The USDA forecasted the 2007 U.S. corn crop at 13.308 billion bushels, 254 million (1.9 percent) larger than the August forecast and 2.773 billion (26.3 percent) larger than the 2006 crop.
    3) Final 2007 crop numbers will be issued in January, 2008.

    A good friend who farms 2300+ acres in central IL says that in the $3.55 to $3.75 per Bu. price range for corn, farmers start to make a pretty good buck. Costs vary by region, but the land they farm is highly productive, so that's their experience this year.

    Also, one other point made to me is that the Congress just upped the Renewable Fuel Standard (recently passed 2007 Energy bill) to use a min. of 36 billion gal. of "Biofuels" by 2022, which is more than a 500% increase of the 2005 Standards. "Biofuels" = Ethanol, which here in the US, comes almost exclusively from corn. So there's going to be even higher demand, mandated Congressionally.

    September, 2007 exports of U.S. corn during the current marketing year were projected at 2.25 billion bushels, 130 million larger than exports during the 2006-07 marketing year and the largest in 18 years. Info. From a Univ. of IL Cooperative Extension Researcher

    The lead article posted has an obvious slant to it (that's their business, so they got to push it hard), but the Economist article reminds me of a "Whistling past the graveyard" type of article, which is akin to saying "Well, if everything goes perfectly, we'll all be fine". Doesn't mean it's going to happen that way.

  5. #5
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Don't forget food needs water. Water is the short pole.
    Sam Liles
    Selil Blog
    Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
    The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
    All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.

  6. #6
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    204

    Default Very much correct - That's ....

    Originally posted by selil:
    Don't forget food needs water. Water is the short pole.
    why (in part) the wheat harvest has been substandard the last two years - drought. But the corn harvest (beans, also) has been good the last 2 years, because no drought.

    My concern is that we are already seeing nations turn off the export tap to maintain the stability of their domestic food supply.

    Imagine what would happen if our 2008 harvest doesn't grow at the same level (or anticipated levels) as for the prior two years, but demands continues to increase. That happens, we got problems right here, right now. You could easily get a 20% rise in base grain prices here in the US, and there's not a pol out there who could withstand the homegrown political pressure they'd be dealing with to cut back/limit food exports. Anything to get those food prices under control.

    Look at what Argentina does (WSJ, Pg. C3, 12.26.2007) on grain exports. They limit exports to a percent of a base year (for beef, it's 2005), and only 70% of that year's exports. On grains, they add on a "per Bu." export tax of between 27.5% up to 35%.

    Let's not kid ourselves - All the pols are looking for an extra source of cash to fund all their favorite programs - what better way to (a) raise additional cash to fund these programs by (b) taxing food exports, which people have to buy (c) with the end result of maintaining the stability of our domestic food prices.

    For example, Argentina raised the export tax on soybeans from 27.5% to 35% in December, 2007, when the daily settlement price on the continuous front-month contracts went from around $8.70 a Bu. (09.01.2007) to $11.80 a Bu. (12.24.2007) for soybeans.

    Anybody who thinks our pols aren't paying attention to all the additional rivers of cash that Argentina's government is bringing in with these export tariffs is crazy.

    But think about what the consequences would be in the international relations arena if all the sudden the US starts treating food exports the same way as OPEC treats oil.

    Thoughts?

  7. #7
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watcher In The Middle View Post

    Anybody who thinks our pols aren't paying attention to all the additional rivers of cash that Argentina's government is bringing in with these export tariffs is crazy.

    But think about what the consequences would be in the international relations arena if all the sudden the US starts treating food exports the same way as OPEC treats oil.

    Thoughts?
    Actually I was talking to a DHS planner about what would happen with an unknown "blight" of corn or wheat. An unexpected genetic drift in hybrids or a unknown/unexpected insect outbreak could wipe out harvests unlike anything in the past (it makes ag people nuts). I'm outside my area of expertise but I believe the issue is called something like uni-crops or something like that. The normal bio-diversity of crops isn't being done like it was in the past and the result is a larger volume of the harvest is effected by any single event since "everybody" is growing "everything" alike. The hybrid nature of some crops and a lack of multiple crops seems to be the issue.

    Then there is salination of soil due to improper irrigation.
    Sam Liles
    Selil Blog
    Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
    The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
    All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.

  8. #8
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    717

    Default

    But think about what the consequences would be in the international relations arena if all the sudden the US starts treating food exports the same way as OPEC treats oil.

    Thoughts?
    An intriguing point, to be sure, and not absolutely out of the realm of possibility. It would be very interesting to see what the great food staples conglomerates (Cargill, Archer-Daniels Midland, etc.) would make of such a development.

    As to genetic diversity in food staples crops, of course there's the little matter of the modern banana possibly going extinct within a generation or so due to genetic manipulation by humans. And many Third World people rely on bananas like we rely on grains.
    Last edited by Norfolk; 01-06-2008 at 06:15 PM.

  9. #9
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watcher In The Middle View Post
    Anybody who thinks our pols aren't paying attention to all the additional rivers of cash that Argentina's government is bringing in with these export tariffs is crazy.


    Thoughts?
    It would appear that US politicians are not the only ones to have noticed where the BA government is trying to raise its taxes.

    Argentine farm taxes row deepens

  10. #10
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by selil
    Don't forget food needs water. Water is the short pole.
    RIA Novosti, 15 Mar 08: EU warns water shortage in Central Asia could spark conflicts
    The severe impact of climate change in Central Asia is causing water and food shortages that could lead to regional conflicts, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana warned.

    Solana delivered a climate change and security report from the High Representative and the European Commission to leaders at the European Union summit held on Thursday and Friday.

    "An increasing shortage of water, which is both a key resource for agriculture and a strategic resource for electricity generation, is already noticeable" in Central Asia, the report said.....

  11. #11
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,099

    Default

    EIU Brief, 25 Mar 08: Egypt the pressure cooker: Soaring food prices lead to widespread protests
    .....The government has sought to address the discontent in several ways. It is especially attempting to improve subsidy provision, separating the production and sale of subsidised bread—the main element in the Egyptian diet—in order to reduce corruption. Families were allowed to add children to their ration cards in February for the first time since 1988 (increasing the total number of beneficiaries from 40m to an estimated 55m). Nevertheless, as rising wheat prices force more and more people to rely on subsidised bread, the queues are lengthening and supplies are coming under strain. Similar problems have also arisen regarding diesel fuel, which is used to power machinery and farm equipment. Shortages have led to outbreaks of fights at petrol stations, and accusations that the government is deliberately keeping stocks hidden to boost prices.....

    .....international commodity prices, especially for wheat and food oils, have increased strongly, by nearly 70% during 2007. This has forced the government to increase domestic wheat prices, from EŁ220 ($439)per bushel to EŁ320 ($639)per bushel—the price paid by the government to farmers for the 2008 crop, in the hope that more wheat will be made available for the domestic market. Egypt is the world's largest wheat importer, importing around 6m tonnes/year, about half the country's needs. Rising food prices led the government to increase subsidies by EŁ4.7bn ($9.4 bn)in the fourth quarter of 2007, taking total subsidies for fiscal 2007/08 to EŁ14.4bn ($28.75 bn).....

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •